View Full Version : Disabling Stupid Safeties

November 29, 2005, 07:47 AM
I disable safeties like it's a bodily function, and I've done it on quite a few different guns, so I thought it was time to share the info (and brag about my perverted pastime).

First, I ought to make it clear why I do this. You the shooter are the safety, no ifs ands or buts about it. I believe certain safeties have caused people to get lazy and careless. Second, I can't stand my property telling me what to do. :cool:

1. My most hated :mad: "safety" is the magazine disconnect abomination, which is partially the reason some people now assume a gun is unloaded if the mag is out (obviously INEXCUSABLE). If you have a Hi Point, just remove the grip panel (I can't remember which side now) and the offending part actually just falls out. Replace grip, problem solved.

If you have a Bersa thunder .380, there is a small chrome spring that can be easily removed with a small flathead screwdriver, once the grip panel is removed of course. It's the side of the grip with the "button" at the entrance to the mag well that gets pushed by the exposed catch on the magazine.

2. OK, I guess I hate this "safety" just as much: the spring tensioned grip "safety." I've heard people in the gun community defend it, but I see no reason for it's existence. On my Vector Arms UZI (http://www.vectorarms.com/indexframe.html) as well as my chinese UZI copies, the spring pops out easily with my trusty small flathead screwdriver. THE ISSUE IS NOT that I'm worried about not having a strong enough grip to actuate it, it's about that it A. feels annoying, and B. it's unnecessary.

I'm going to get royally looked at as a heretic :eek: for this one but here goes. To disable the grip "safety" on a 1911 (yea, it flops around, but only when you're NOT holding the gun to fire it), just push out the post at the bottom rear of the grip to cause the backstrap piece to come down. Pull it out and take the "three fingered" metal piece that creates the spring tension for the hammer as well as the "safety." Take note of which one gives spring tension to the grip safety and give it a slight push/bend in the opposite direction, just enough to make it ineffectual. I found that this piece actually goes back together much EASIER once this is done. When I did this to my Springfield compact 1911, I almost gave up trying to figure out how to disable the safety and went to put it back together. It's such a pain in the ass to reassemble, I bent the proper "finger" out of sheer frustration/anger and voila, it went back together much easier AND the "safety" was disabled :D .

November 29, 2005, 08:43 AM
on the down side a disabled safety may look bad if youre in court after a self defense shooting:(

November 29, 2005, 10:18 AM
Yes having lots of safeties breeds carlessness. Some people can't reliably depress the 1911 grip safety because of the way they grip it.You can disable it by adding a piece to block in the grip safety without any other alteration.Remove it and you're back to original. Magazine safeties are not needed in my opinion. It's also good to have all your guns the same regarding a mag safety.

November 29, 2005, 06:05 PM
Magazine safeties have a very real place in LEO use. There several expamples of officers who have been saved by the fact that their S&W service automatic had a magazine release safety. If fighting for the gun one of the easiest things to do is press that button, renderring the gun useless to the average unintelligent thug. I have even read of an instance where an officer who was beaten down had his S&W taken and turned on him. The BG pulled the trigger, nothing, he pushed the mag release thinking it was the safety and pulled the trigger, nothing, he then finally found the safety but with the mag partially released again nothing. He eventually gave up trrying to kill the officer.

November 29, 2005, 06:31 PM
Its all about training and practice with your firearm. zero or five safeties- its all about training and practice. If you train with your weapons like all warriors should, the safeties won't be an inconvenience. I don't find professional gunsmiths removing or disabling safeties- why is that? Just my thoughts...

November 29, 2005, 08:12 PM
here we go again

Jammer Six
November 29, 2005, 08:19 PM
Just as a safety won't make an unsafe shooter safe, neither will removing safeties.

Harry Bonar
November 29, 2005, 08:21 PM
Dear Shooter:
I agree that certain safeties are, at best, inconvenient.
But, I would never disable a safety. A wise and savy shooter will live very sucessfully with his safeties. At the place where I used to work we would NEVER disable a safety. The Browning mag safety is the ONLY one I feel could bre removed in a combat situation - but, safeties are many times designed to let you know that your gun is not loaded (viz. Browning.)
This is just my opinion but do not disable safeties - it may seem like I'm taking the "government line" - I'm not - but don't disable safeties.
If, on the other hand on YOUR guns you do this that's something your used to - but always replace them before you trade or sell these guns.
Harry B.

November 29, 2005, 08:34 PM
It could just as easily happen that in a struggle with a bad guy that somehow the mag gets dropped out of the gun and the LEO gets shot because his new fangled gun won't fire without the mag in it. That feature can be both a blessing and your worst nightmare.

Safeties are there for one reason, to make sure you don't have an accidental discharge. Yes, the poster is 100% correct in his statement the shooter is the safety, but there are situations where a grip safety is a good thing to have. Take for example when a guy sits down and somehow his holstered 45ACP goes off simply because he disconnected the grip safety and although he carries his gun cocked and locked, somehow it just went off and shot him in the backside. You might wish one day that you didn't disconnect it.

I won't go into a spiel about why you need to not do what you are doing, I will simply say that if there is ever an accident with one of your guns, you will be held at fault. If you don't mind that, I don't either.

November 30, 2005, 05:04 AM
cntryboy1289, you hit the nail on the head with saying that the mag discon safety "can be both a blessing and your worst nightmare," then came this:

I will simply say that if there is ever an accident with one of your guns, you will be held at fault That is quite an assumption + amazing use of a crystal ball. Since of course, every situation is the same, predicting that I "will" be at fault MUST be correct :rolleyes: . I try not to use superlatives too much but that is in the running for the stupidest thing I have ever read. There is no logic in predicting such a thing. Disabling the safeties I've mentioned, you forget, essentially only turns the gun into the same as 99.99% of what's out there (comparatively hardly any guns in circulation have either the mag discon OR the squeeze grip "safety"). So, based on your "logic" cntryboy1289, making my guns on par with nearly everything else in circulation, subtly predisposes me to "an accident" and not only that, it guarantees that I "will be held at fault?" Good night nurse, I've heard it all now :D .

A wise and savy shooter will live very sucessfully with his safeties. I think it's wiser to make an improvment, as opposed to learning to "live with" something that is not necessary.

but, safeties are many times designed to let you know that your gun is not loaded (viz. Browning.) That is not a safety, passive or otherwise, it is an indicator, an information source. My speedometer provides information that will help me avoid an accident, but it is not, in any way, either a manual (obviously) or even a passive safety. A safety mechanically prevents something, under certain condtions when activated either manually or passively.

By and large, I'd say that most responses to my topic have been very well thought out.

Lazy D
November 30, 2005, 08:05 AM
If you are a professional gunsmith and make it a practice of removing safties, you wont be in business very long. My best advise is to make sure you company is set up in an LLC so the lawyers can only take your company assets and not your house, car, boat, first born.....:eek:

Bad practice.

Doing your personal guns is one thing, but I would NEVER do a customers gun.

November 30, 2005, 09:19 AM
I try not to use superlatives too much but that is in the running for the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Well we're all glad to know that. :rolleyes:

I think Countryboy was trying to politely say that you shouldn't come crying to us (or sue the gun manufacturer for producing a defective product) after you shoot yourself in the ass. But I suppose that I'm one of the "stupid" people, too. :)

Anyway, the only safety that I can't stand is the one that is built into the gun and requires a key.

November 30, 2005, 01:34 PM
Fremmer, I was simply trying to let the man know that no one is perfect and we all have things happen that can't be predicted. If you do something like remove the safety or prevent it from working, I can gaurantee you that you will be held accountable for it in a court of law.


After your excellent reply, I will kindly try to explain what I mean with my statement. If you have an accidental discharge with one of your guns and it is found out that you disabled the safety, the court will find you liable for the discharge simply because they will find you to exhibit wreckless behavior. Sir, that is fact and not suspiscion or supposition. If you alter your gun in any way these days and you have an accident, you will be held responsible by any simpleton lawyer simply because of the way our courts will hold you up to the microscope just for being a gun owner.

All that was said to warn you and not to tick you off or to make light of you or anything else. If you disagree with that, I am sorry for you because in this day of litigation, liability inusrance wouldn't even cover you either if you had it in a case just like the one we are discussing simply because you disabled the very thing that the courts believe make a gun safe. You have to understand the courts these days aren't logical most of the time. They operate out of fear and throw logic out the window most of the time.

Please don't get me wrong about this, I agree that a safety gets more people hurt these days more than anything else other than believing a gun is unloaded which both are poor reasons for pulling the trigger without first checking, but we arent discussing you pulling the trigger intentionally here. The point of my statement is simply that accidents will happen even to the best gun handlers that know everything about gun safety. I really would think that even a man such as yourself would understand that is why they were put on guns to begin with, to make little old ladies who will be sitting on your jury feel much better about their grandson using his rifle out in the back yard. They are used to make someone feel safe. You already realize that much or you wouldn't have posted about it to begin with bragging about it like you did.

There are a lot of safeties that are usless and some that simply are poorly designed, but they are supposedly the last line of defense against an accidental discharge even for terrific gun handlers like yourself. You see, even the most careful guy in the world who knows everything he needs to know to make sure he won't accidently shoot himself or his buddy might some day have a situation where for no apparent reason his gun goes off. We all know that it will be an accident and not your fault, but who will be blamed if it is found out that you removed the safety?

Now on that particular day if the buddy gets shot, I can guarantee you that some lawyer will read about the story and then go talk to your buddy's family and sue you for everything you are worth. Please believe me when I tell you that when everything comes out in court and they find out that you remove the safeties on all of your guns, they will rake you over the coals. You go ahead and consider me an idiot if you wish, but if the day ever comes, just remember that day that someone with a little sense tried to warn you about it. That is all I tried to do was warn you. It is up to you to take it for what it is worth and do what it is that you wish to do. If there wasn't a reason to worry about it, why on earth would they put the heavy trigger pulls on a gun and tell you that if you lower the pull, they won't be held responsible for an accident? Simply because of the litigating society we live in.

Oh and by the way, if you think I am crazy for telling you all of this, call up your insurance agent and ask him if your gun goes off in your house accidently and hits a friend or relative if they will cover you and them on your liability insurance. Please be honest with him and tell him that you remove your safeties from all your guns and just want to know if he will cover you if you have an accident. Just be prepared to have your insurance canceled on you because they will drop you like a hot rock. That may be a crystal ball speaking to you, but you might ought to listen to that crystal ball.

Oh an by the way, I would think that a man in business would realize that from a business standpoint, you would understand why worrying about litigation is as important as it is. On all of those guns you have for sale, did you include the safety on any of them or did you decide to just trust in the good of all your customers and depend on them to be safe with their gun?

November 30, 2005, 02:52 PM
I knew what you were trying to tell him, Countryboy, and I happen to agree with you. But regardless of whether you are right or wrong, I guess I was just reacting to the sarcastic comment about how stupid your reply was.

I'll tell ya, I just got back home after spending two nights in a Red Cross Shelter inside a Church with about 125 other people (and their pets) during a blizzard. We were all tired, irritated, and unhappy, but not a single person was so rude as to assert that a comment was stupid. How unfortunate that a Junior Member with a grand total of 8 posts couldn't have been a little more polite.

November 30, 2005, 02:58 PM
cntryboy1289 + 100%, I think you put it perfectly in perspective and if this guy wants to do it, whatever.
He just dont want to come here boasting about it and expect everybody to think it is clever!

November 30, 2005, 03:34 PM
Fremmer, I figured you were in agreement on the way it was presented. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew where I was coming from. I hope the guy doesn't have to find out the hard way about the situation. After I finished the last post, I saw where he is actually in business for himself selling guns. I just wonder if he has sold any of those without having a safety on them or told his customers they should ignore them and render them useless because they aren't necessary? Any one in business should know that if you have an accident, the courts can lay the blame anywhere the majority of the jury deem fit to lay the blame on. They will also go to the deepest pockets first.

The funny thing is that I agree with him in that a lot of safeties or a waste of time and aren't necessary. The only difference is that when they are put on a gun and you disable them and have an accident, the courts will find you at fault simply because you decided you were smarter than the company that made the gun. That may not be the right thing to do, but it is a simple fact that in our day and age, courts will lay blame at the most convienant place they can find and the guy that removes a factory safety will be that guy.

MasterPieceArms.com, please don't think I am trying to put you on the spot here, but for you to think the idea is crazy that someone will find you at fault for disarming a factory safety if there is an accident is a little beyond reasoning. Let's take for example a simple case we had recently. The criminal courts rules a man didn't kill his wife. Then a civil court rules he owes his wife's children 31 million dollars because they thought he was either behind it or had it done. Now to me, this is beyond logic for a civil court to find fault and say an innocent man owes money for the wrongful death of his wife if the criminal court ruled he wasn't responsible. A civil court doesn't depend on all 12 members of a jury to make a guilty decision like the criminal court does. Even if they only feel like you are guilty, then they can hold you responsible. They can and do hold folks accountable that are not guilty each and everyday. Just look at the recent junk lawsuits filed against our gun makers. They were being sued because little johnny stole a gun and used it to kill someone. They certainly weren't guilty of anything, but they had to defend themselves in court. Just a legal defense can ruin a man financially.

November 30, 2005, 05:06 PM

You left out the part where the criminal, who had put the LEO down with a sucker punch, got so frustrated with the gun that he threw it into the officer's chest before leaving. So not only was he too stupid to work the gun, he gave it back to the officer when he couldn't figure it out. I can't remember the name of the ex-Chicago cop with the big handlebar moustache who lectures on security? Not a pro-gun guy. Nonetheless, he makes the salient observation that he's been patting people down for 30 years, and hasn't come across a MENSA card yet.


A lot of people (my father, for one) have hands whose palms form a recess or pocket right over the bottom of the 1911 grip safety when they grasp the gun for firing, so they find the trigger blocked. This is what Mete was referring to.

The grip safety is only extra protection against the gun discharging if it is dropped on its butt. It doesn't make it any more or less likely for a person whose hands depress the safety while grasping the weapon to experience a negligent discharge. Therefore, disabling it doesn't carry the same potential for a prosecutor to make a reckless endangerment case as defeating the thumb safety would do.

If you install a lightweight aluminum or composite trigger shoe with a skeletonized trigger stirrup, you gain some protection against the butt-drop accident anyway. I wouldn't feel concerned about installing a grip safety retaining clip or otherwise defeating the grip safety in the case that the gun was properly fitted with such a trigger and tested for unintended hammer fall. Installing the light trigger demonstrates intent to provide an alternative means of addressing the problem. Plus, you have an affirmative defense that the safety prevented the gun from working to protect you. Indeed, several of the professionals at Gunsite had grip safety clips in place when I was there (and their guns all had properly checked-out trigger jobs).

I can't put words in Countryboy's mouth, but unless you’ve had your head in the sand as liability suits have grown in leaps and bounds, you should know to take his warning seriously. In real courts of law, here's what will happen: You shoot Mr. Badguy in legitimate self-defense. No accidental discharge. The prosecutor learns your gun has defeated safeties and records the fact. He may wonder if your self-defense claim is an attempt to cover up a negligent discharge? He can't prove it clearly enough be confident of persuading 12 jurors, and if you're lucky, Mr. Badguy is well-known to local LEO's as chronic trouble. Maybe you even have witnesses to back you up? So the prosecutor declines to prosecute.

Think you’re off the hook? Heaven help you, because Mr. Badguy's extended parasite family wants to supplement their welfare checks in the amount of your life's savings and future income. Especially if Mr. Badguy survived and can lie about what happened. So they file a civil court case. Their Legal Leech uses discovery to read the case file and, lo and behold, finds a Christmas present: the prosecutor's record of the defeated safeties. Mr. Badguy's family steals a set of Sunday-best clothes and 20 pounds of Kleenex from Dollar General and show up in the civil courtroom to weep pathetically throughout the trial.

In civil court, unlike criminal court, jury decisions don't require unanimity. They only have to convince a majority of jurors your defeated safeties prove you are reckless and exhibit gross indifference to public safety and to the well-being of those around you. And, even if you did intend to shoot Mr. Badguy, they will argue the safety might have given you one more chance to change your mind at the last split second. You know the one. The split second that Mr. Badguy swears is the one in which he would have surrendered the shotgun he was only trying to scare you with. Never mind that this is ludicrous. You only need the bad luck to draw enough people on the jury who believe what they see on evening news; who’ve been persuaded a rifle by any other name is an assault rifle; who are convinced that carry permits can turn any state into a free-fire zone. Someone once asked: Do you really want to be judged by people too stupid to get out of jury duty? I like to think a sense of civic duty drives most jurors, but then, I’m an optimist. And you only have to get a bonehead jury once to receive a lifetime of misery.

So, you may be completely correct that safeties are redundant, but you are speaking from the perspective of the gun handler. The jury mostly will have got their gun handling “knowledge” from TV dramas, and in the end it is their opinion, informed or otherwise, that will decide the matter. It has nothing to do with gun technology, truth, gun handling skill, or justice. With the single exception of defeating the 1911 grip safety under the circumstances I described, I recommend for your own legal protection that you just learn to work the darn things expeditiously.


Harry Bonar
November 30, 2005, 05:37 PM


Harry B.

November 30, 2005, 06:08 PM

it lives under the bridge


November 30, 2005, 06:15 PM
liability!!! we dont need no shtinking liability!

November 30, 2005, 10:31 PM
changing the point: it seems to me you can come on here and say just about anything and there will be a number of people who disagree with you or question your brain power.

doesn't mean they, or you, are right.

do what you want to........

November 30, 2005, 11:48 PM
Just because a bunch of folks chimed in and said it was a bad idea doesn't mean they were wrong either. If you bring forth good information, most of the time, folks will agree with you. Bring forth something that goes against the norm and if folks see something wrong, should they not say something?

Think about this for a moment if you will. There are four or five folks on this board that usually answer most of the questions that come along. Some times it may be just one or two that chime in, but on an average, there might be 7-8 posts unless there is something that is hard to figue out.

With this post, all I did was pass on a warning. I won't even get into the fact of how the poster responded to my post, that is simply neither here nor there. I am a big boy and I don't mind it when someone calls me on a post I make or even when they show their rearend off and say I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The thing of it is simply this, I chose to make a comment about the hazards of doing what the poster does. I hush and leave up to each person to decide what they want to do.

December 1, 2005, 12:55 AM
cntryboy1289 if you are responding to me then why don't you read what i said before you respond.

I said: doesn't mean they, or you, are right.

you said: Just because a bunch of folks chimed in and said it was a bad idea doesn't mean they were wrong either.

if you were responding to someone else then please ignore my comment.

December 1, 2005, 01:35 AM
And the point of this thread is exactly what???

anyone with a lick of mechanical ability can figure a way to remove things if they want to --- if it's a good idea from either a safety, leagal or mechanical standpoint is a whole diffirent story, if you can't figure it out on your own then you had definalty have no busness even considering it.

Thank you for sharing, now all of us who carry high points or Uzi's and worried about these safties messing up our day can rest assured that we need no longer suffer these problems.

Jammer Six
December 1, 2005, 04:49 AM


My mistake.


December 1, 2005, 01:52 PM
After I finished the last post, I saw where he is actually in business for himself selling guns. Hold the telefono, where did you get THAT idea? I've never said that I sell guns. :confused:

I'll tell ya, I just got back home after spending two nights in a Red Cross Shelter inside a Church with about 125 other people (and their pets) during a blizzard. We were all tired, irritated, and unhappy, but not a single person was so rude as to assert that a comment was stupid. How unfortunate that a Junior Member with a grand total of 8 posts couldn't have been a little more polite.

Fremmer if you can't stand the heat then here's the door (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/index.php), go discuss something else. After all, my number of posts is sooooooo important, meaningful, and relevant. :rolleyes:

cntryboy1289, thank you for not being thin skinned and easily offended like a few responders.

December 1, 2005, 02:07 PM
After all, my number of posts is sooooooo important, meaningful, and relevant.


All righty then....Ill add that you use the name of a company that sells...ahem....shall we say ninja toys (thats OK i reckon, we all have ninja toys albiet most of them are a bit more practical), and start your posting life with thoughts about disabling safeties on UZis and Hi Point....

Thats also meaningful and relevant...than agian, why am I even feeding this


December 1, 2005, 03:02 PM
All righty then. Glad we understand each other.

I just realized (from spending time at my other thread, and the fact that I'm hungry) that if you took a hit off a bong, you'd be BakedAlaska :p

Thats also meaningful and relevant...than agian, why am I even feeding this

Because I am a peeling scab you can't stop playing with. :)

December 1, 2005, 03:18 PM
that if you took a hit off a bong, you'd be BakedAlaska

Not very original.

Because I am a peeling scab you can't stop playing with.

You said it, not me.

Time for me to join the adults again


December 1, 2005, 03:49 PM

Not very original is right pal.

December 1, 2005, 04:03 PM
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-s like a duck, then it must be a duck right. You come along and show us that isn't quite true. Most of the time, a man's company name is reserved to be used only by himself. If you aren't the man who owns Masterpiecearms.com, you are either an idiot that couldn't come up with a decent name like your own or a knickname like I do, or are just a simple crook.

Either way really doesn't offend me, but I just wish before you start showing someone the door around here on this post that you would have either been here offering good information for a long time or just keep your tone under control. We have gotten along pretty well for a long time and we all do our best to help any time we can. Now, with that said, either get along with folks and place nice, or the folks around here will be showing you to the door!

December 1, 2005, 04:23 PM
Thanks for the lecture, your above post was sure all class, and a fine example of "playing nice" :rolleyes: You can tell a lot about a person when you try to give them a compliment and they respond with personal attacks. Why are you so bored cntryboy1289 that you sit and obsess and make assumptions about my username? You could have just asked me about it and I would have told you, you didn't need to go making up stories that I "sell guns" and "own the company." Ironic for someone lecturing me about "getting along." If your previous post is the best example of "getting along" you've got, do us all a favor take the mature path and just ignore me then.

What slays me is that cntryboy1289's basic message is that he has decided that I need to get back into "my place" because I'm not "tenured" I guess, and am not part of his elite group who have nearly a thousand posts. I've never been one to bow to that kind of elitism. If I'm a little too "uppity" for cntryboy1289's taste, well that's just a dern shame 'aint it.

December 1, 2005, 07:10 PM
Did I touch a nerve there masterpiece. First off, after looking at the masterpeicearms.com web site, I assumed which we should all never do that you owned the company. I however did not make up a story about you nor have I said anything that isnt true intentionally. Like I said, I assumed you owned the company whos name you used as your sign in name.

Let's walk you down a path of history. You came on and made your original post. I replied in my original post that I wouldn't do it myself, but that I did realize that a lot of safeties aren't very good, but if you mess with them and have an accident, you will be held liable for the accident. That was a common sense reply that will hold up to scrutiny in a court of law each and every day.

Your comeback to that reply was not only sarcastic and rude, but you made it sound like I was an idiot. You also without realizing it, made light of a very good reply that a gunsmith that has forgotten more than you will ever know made to you and brushed it off like you were the end all to be all of gunsmithing knowledge and that his reply meant nothing as well. You have then went on to be as sarcastic and rude to folks, which is your right to do so, when you told Fremmer he could hit the door if he didn't like your answers as well. Then you bit off a chunk of WildAlaska's ass when you mouthed off to him. I simply replied to you that not only have you not been around here long enough to show the knowledge that you have and given it to folks both freely and without causing ill feelings, but that if you don't care to behave, the folks here would most likely step in and say something.

Now, if none of this makes sense to you and it makes you mad, then I am sorry to have made you mad. Part of my last post wasn't even directed toward you, but since you show your true colors and want to play the "yah yah" game, go play by yourself somewhere else. You certainly won't be missed since from the only time I have seen your name in a post was this very post and on your first time out you have managed to not only smart off to everyone that made a contray post to your original comments, but you choose to draw someone out into an argument. Now, I am not telling you to leave or to keep quite or to do anything other than just use some common courtesy to folks. If you don't agree with what is said, then be polite and not cause a ruckus. The internet is a great forum that is full of folks that want to blast someone when they don't agree with what they hear. Please just don't be like that.

You will find that I am one of the easiest persons in the world to get along with. Treat folks right and don't show your rearend, you and I will get along famously. However, if you choose to act the way you have been acting, folks around here and most anywhere else will chime in on you and let you know about it. I am cetainly not an elitist by any stretch of the imagination. Any one can come play in my court as long as they play nice and don't spit at the other players. You sir, have spit in way too many faces already to be bouncing up and getting your panties in a wad.

I have done my best to be polite and not waver from the point and certainly haven't dreamed up anything about you. I think the folks will see you for what you truely are. Have a good day sir, life is too short to waste anymore time on you.

December 2, 2005, 07:19 AM
Hey Masterpiece arms may just be a small shop turining out their vershion of a Mac clone or something along those lones but if you are not them I'd be carefull of using their exact name / website as a user name esp. if you plan on getting folks pissed off --- any company that makes firearms has enough / knows where to get enough legal power to take a bite out of you bottom if they want to

December 2, 2005, 02:37 PM
Yea, you really "touched a nerve" countryboy, that's why you are the one who posts a long diatribe about me. I got one sentence in and did this :rolleyes: , this :barf: , this :D , and mooooved on. Grow up will ya (I seem to remember telling you to ignore me. The fact that you just can't walk away is hilarious).

Anyway, since this thread is about disabling ill concieved "safeties," I'm going to spray for trolls and ask if anyone knows of other models of guns that have mag discon safeties that are semi easy to disable. I noticed the FN 5.7 appears to have one but looked a little too tough to defeat (it seemed to be actuated deep in the mag well as opposed to a small spring that could be removed.)

Needless to say, that HK squeezecocker would be my least likely gun to buy.

Since the liability (actually fear) issue has really been strong here, I'm curious if everyone has had their pre 1960s lever actions turned into paperclips or something because I had two fairly old 30-30s that had no button safety, no NOTHING. I took one out shooting and just shot it like I would any other gun. I guess I enjoyed the liberating feeling of just focusing on the actual SHOOTING and proper gun handling without so much as the possibility of an extra step to push a button, flip a switch, or squeeze something. Faith in oneself can be a nice break from all the pointless self pessimism most people display. Being in a position where you HAVE to have faith in yourself and proper principles of gun handling is a helluva confidence builder, not to mention fun.

A bunch of posters seem scared poopless about the mere concept of disabling some safety, and have endless "warnings" for me, but either they don't have any guns older than the 1980s or forget that there's untold millions of guns out there without so much as a transfer bar. If all the fear was justified, you'd see guys getting rid of their old safety-less guns in droves. I guess some of these scared posters just haven't seen what some older guys have in thier safes :eek: . I visualize some of these people flapping their hands like Jack from Will & Grace saying "Oh my God, Oh my God, it doesn't have a safety." :D

December 2, 2005, 02:51 PM
sorry to hear that having to push a button or flip a switch intrudes on your focus while shooting. have you talked with your doctor about your apparent ADD?

James K
December 2, 2005, 03:11 PM
Convinced me. I just went out and disabled the brakes on my car, figuring that I am such a good driver I don't need stupid safety devices.


December 2, 2005, 04:12 PM
I seem to remember Kenny Roberts was asked if not being able to pressure his back brake due to leg injury had slowed him down when winning a race in europe. " hell no he said I dont really use them, the dang things just slow you down anyway" seeing were off topic and all!

December 2, 2005, 04:25 PM
Convinced me. I just went out and disabled the brakes on my car, figuring that I am such a good driver I don't need stupid safety devices. That's exactly the same as removing a magazine disconnect safety (government schools is great).

sorry to hear that having to push a button or flip a switch intrudes on your focus while shooting.

Here spaceman this ought to be to your liking ;) :


Jammer Six
December 2, 2005, 05:10 PM
Convinced me. I just went out and disabled the brakes on my car, figuring that I am such a good driver I don't need stupid safety devices.
And if you were't a safe driver before, driving around without brakes will make you safer.

December 3, 2005, 09:08 PM
Masterpiecearms man, you are simply too much for me to handle. If I could, let me give you a history lesson?

Safeties weren't much used when guns are first being made were they?

Why of course they were. If a gun is unloaded, it is safe. If you have a hammer that must be cocked to fire and it is let down, that's a safety as well. Most six guns of old had to be carried with only five shells loaded in it or an accident could happen if the hammer was bumped against a live round. This was a safety as well and most smart folks around realized it was necessary unless you were involved in a gun fight at the time.

Along came Mr. Winchester and he built repeating rifles that had safeties as well. If the lever wasn't closed, the gun wasn't suppose to fire just as if the hammer wasn't cocked and so on and so on. Then came Mr. Mossberg who invented a simple thing called the trasnfer bar. Guess what, it's a safety that changed the way revolvers performed and allowed for 6 rounds to be carried in the cylinder since the firing pin was moved to the frame and the hammer had to be cocked before the gun could fire.

You complained about your more recent guns having to many safeties. That is perfectly fine, just go buy an older modeled gun that isn't full of useless safeties, you just might ought to buy a gun that was built before 1870 though, because ever since then, most guns have one form of a safety involved with their operation. I don't see the need for a lot of the extra safeties that are forced on us, but they don't effect my shooting of the gun since it doesn't take a rocket scientist to shoot the gun. I do agree that the one where a key has to be put in a gun is just a wrongful death suit away when a bad guys kills a man because he couldn't get the key to work while under diress.

If a safety bothers you so much that you cannot shoot the gun, by all means go right ahead and render it useless. JUst follow some of the advise that you were given and fix them back if you ever decide to sell it or in case someone borrows it from you. We all love you man and just want you to be here for the long haul.

Have a great one man.

December 7, 2005, 11:59 PM
Disabling gun safeties? Excellent idea. :rolleyes:

Dont worry about those small things like...human error...accidents...curious kids (they get in your safe whether you know it or not :cool: ).

Harry Bonar
December 8, 2005, 07:45 PM
Dear, Dear Shooters:
Do not disable safeties!
Harry B.:)